IOTA: Nine Years On From 'To the Moon' to a Hangover

IOTA: Nine Years From 'To the Moon' to 'To the Floor'

When does a cryptocurrency stop being a technological promise and become a matter of faith? In September 2017, with IOTA trading at 0.48 dollars and only accessible through the Bitfinex exchange, someone peine a thread with an unequivocal statement: if you want to get rich, buy. It promised 4 dollars before the year ended. Nine years later, the outcome of that bet is an unintentional documentary on how a digital asset inflates and deflates.

IOTA is not Bitcoin. It doesn't use a blockchain but a DAG called Tangle, designed for micro-transactions between machines in the so-called internet of things. That was the hook: it wasn't a copy & paste of Bitcoin; it was something different. The problem is that the price started trading as if the technology were already finished when no one had proven it worked at scale.

From $0.48 to Top 10 Market Cap

The launch had a revealing detail: IOTA could only be bought on one exchange, Bitfinex, yet it reached a market capitalization within the top 10 of all cryptocurrencies. The reasoning was simple and brilliant: imagine what will happen when it reaches Kraken, Coinbase, or Bittrex. The $4 promise and the anticipation of new markets fueled the initial surge.

Some people invested 600 dollars on the first day, and others entered convinced they would hold for 'a couple of years.' The euphoria itself carried its expiration date. An early warning suggested that the only real danger was Bitcoin falling again, as all alt-coins would drop more than it. Few paid much attention.

2.779 Million Tokens and Manipulation Accusations

The first sustancia ilegal wasn't in the technology but in the distribution. The total supply was 2,779,530,283 MIOTA, already fully distributed. An analysis insisted that only 8% of these coins were actually on the market: the remaining 92% remained in the hands of their original owners, who released them gradually. The uncomfortable conclusion: those who bought IOTA were only helping the creators get rich, as the price was sustained by supply scarcity, not by the asset's actual value.

The response was swift. Lower float means higher volatility in the stock market, which can be seen positively. The counter-argument also made sense: large holders aren't shaken by a 20% drop, while weak investors panic and sell. This 'strong hands' theory became the perfect alibi to justify both rises and crashes.

The Tangle, the 'Arrow of Time,' and Centralization Suspicions

The most uncomfortable technical criticism didn't discuss the price but the foundations. IOTA, according to this view, was a centralized scam. The reasoning: any network that abandons proof-of-work to guarantee its own 'arrow of time' ends up needing centralization mechanisms—witnesses, checkpoints, supernodes—to avoid breaking. And without that arrow, they argued, it's impossible to know how much time has passed or how irreversible a recorded transaction is.

On the other hand, network performance data showed around 0.7 confirmed CTPS, with a peak shortly after a snapshot with few users connected, barely reaching 2.1. The most optimistic argued it wasn't a failure but a reversible technical problem. When they fixed it, they claimed, it wouldn't be 'to the moon': it would be to Pluto.

December 2017: The Pump and the Thread Op's Exit

In early December 2017, IOTA experienced its rollercoaster. While the rest of the top 10 were in the red, IOTA was rising and moving the same volume as Ethereum, something unprecedented. The most common interpretation was a classic pump: whales inflate the price to attract thousands of new buyers and then sell heavily at a higher level. The precedent cited was Cardano's massive pump.

It was during this phase that the thread's instigator claimed victory. He admitted to liquidating 80% of his position and congratulated himself for multiplying his investment 17x since August thanks to other coins. He concluded with a statement summarizing the prevailing logic: it wasn't that he thought it would drop, but that he had already earned enough to go spend the money.

February 2018 and the Emotional Toll

Then came the bloodbath. Those who bought at $1, having seen it reach $5.5, found themselves demanding explanations from a thread that offered none. Some demanded the original author apologize for the 'mess,' while others accused him of inflating the price like a betting tipster. The response was dry yet reasonable: no one is obligated to warn anyone, everyone is responsible for their actions, and the market doesn't always go up. Those who bought at half a dollar might not have taken it so badly.

This is where the narrative becomes more honest than any chart. Investors appear with 10,000 dollars invested between $3.30 and $3.60, accepting the loss; accounts that entered at $0.8 saw it drop to $0.35; and people decided to stop looking at charts for mental health. The mantra repeats: hodl, hold on for two or three years and look again.

Fujitsu, Volkswagen, Engie: The Industrial Angle

While the price bled, institutional machinery continued. Fujitsu tested Industry 4.0 combinations with the Tangle. DXC, the tech services giant with around 170,000 employees, announced demonstrations at the Hannover Fair. French energy company Engie, listed on the CAC 40, signed with the IOTA Foundation. Volkswagen and Bosch appeared on the radar, and even General Electric, with 150 billion in market cap and 300,000 employees, was rumored as a potential partner.

The most relevant milestone cited was different: the Object Management Group, the consortium that decides global software standards, initiated the standardization process for IOTA. Becoming the standard for the internet of things would be comparable to being the TCP/IP of the sector. The Foundation also gained presence in the German Bundestag, the OECD, and a banking congress in Frankfurt with Draghi among the attendees. Supporters were clear: if the technology is good, the token will eventually be worth it.

---

Where Did the Debate Go?

Nine years of conversation leave an ambiguous residue. The network continued to have performance issues for a long period, and the price dropped from over $5 to lows that some sarcastically called 'to the floor.' The Foundation continued to grow, sign agreements, and sit at tables where no other cryptocurrency was present. The token, meanwhile, depended on Bitcoin's mood.

One unresolved question remains, and it's important not to hide it: is the project failing, or is it the patience of those who bought believing they would get rich in a month? There's no easy answer. However, an answer exists for the observer: nine years later, the promise of $4 before the year ended still awaits judgment.